BGC Threatens Legal Challenge as Affordability Checks Dispute Escalates

The dispute around Financial Risk Assessments (FRAs), often described in the wider debate as affordability checks, has intensified after the Betting and Gaming Council (BGC) warned it could consider legal action if the UK Gambling Commission moves ahead with the next phase of the proposal.

The warning comes ahead of discussions on future FRA plans and reflects a growing divide between the regulator and operators. While the Gambling Commission says the checks can be targeted and largely frictionless, the BGC argues that pilot findings raise questions around data quality, customer impact and potential black market risks.

BGC Raises Pressure Ahead Of FRA Decision

BGC Chief Executive Grainne Hurst has written to Gambling Commission interim Chair Charles Counsell, Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy, Gambling Minister Baroness Twycross and acting Gambling Commission CEO Sarah Gardner.

As reported by iGamingExpert, Hurst argued that introducing Financial Risk Assessments under the current model could be “disproportionate” and could leave the regulator vulnerable to a legal challenge. The trade body said the pilot highlighted “serious failings,” including differing outputs from credit reference agencies and unresolved questions over how operators would apply the results in practice.

The BGC also argues that the practical impact of the checks could be wider than current regulatory estimates suggest.

Dispute Over How Many Customers Could Be Affected

How many customers could eventually be drawn into the process remains one of the main points of disagreement.

The Gambling Commission says fewer than 3% of active customer accounts would trigger any action under the proposed model. Of those, 97% would receive a frictionless assessment. According to the regulator, only around 0.1% of active accounts would both require an assessment and be unable to receive it through frictionless methods.

The BGC disputes those projections. It argues the number could reach 5% overall, rise to 10% among customers who place bets monthly and increase to as much as 20% if lower-spend players are excluded.

These figures reflect competing interpretations rather than agreed projections.

What Financial Risk Assessments Are Meant To Do

The Gambling Commission has repeatedly said FRAs are not affordability checks in the traditional sense and are not designed to determine what someone can afford to spend.

Instead, the system is intended to identify remote gambling customers showing signs of significant or worsening financial difficulty. Checks would be triggered at certain spending thresholds and use data from credit reference agencies.

The regulator has also stressed that FRAs would not affect a customer’s credit score and could reduce the need for operators to request financial documents directly.

FRAs are not currently live. The Commission has said that during the pilot phase no consumer had action taken as a result of an FRA.

Black Market Concerns Remain Central

The BGC continues to argue that friction or intrusive checks could push customers away from regulated operators.

The trade body has pointed to a YouGov poll it commissioned showing that 65% of betting customers said they would be unwilling to provide documents such as bank statements or payslips to continue betting.

Operators have repeatedly raised concerns that some customers could move toward unlicensed sites if checks become too burdensome. Those sites operate outside UK safer gambling standards and regulatory protections.

The Gambling Commission maintains that the aim is to identify financially vulnerable customers and prevent serious harm.

The debate is now moving beyond whether vulnerable players should be protected. The question increasingly is whether the proposed FRA model has shown it can do that without creating additional friction, legal challenges or unintended consequences for the wider market.